Why remain in Irak?

Why did Romania choose to remain in Irak? Most of the coalition members have pulled out, yet we will continue to keep around 400 soldiers there. Wouldn't it be more useful to withdraw them and hike our contingent in Afghanistan, where we could play a bigger role on the border with Pakistan?

It is a "token" force anyway. They saw some action, but not as much as others. Some soldiers died, but not as many as others. Using your "logic" from another "discussion" that means that we actually are not in Irak at all.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on January 08, 2009 06:51 pm

Yes it is a token force.
And you're once again consciously insinuating things that I did not state. I never said that a token force means "not being there at all". And I see you're still not at peace and arguing about that, though your last reply there accused me of arguing with you. Who's arguing with whom?

I am not insinuating anything. I am quoting you.

You said that South America was not involved in WW2 because Brazil, the largest country of Sourth America, was not involved in WW2 because:
- they sent "only" 25.000 (twenty five thousand) troops to Italy, which, according to you, is a "token" force
- they shot down "only a few" German aircraft
- they did not see that much action

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If South America was not involved in WW2, then Romania is not involved in Irak either. Actually, using your "yardstick" to measure the "war in Irak", that war is actually not taking place at all.

You are the one who insists that the "at war" state of a country is not based on "involvement" or a "declaration of war" or "joining a coalition" but rather it is based only on "significant involvement". Admit it, you were caught with your pants down, had no idea that Brazil actually saw action in WW2 and then you unleashed two pages of ranting trying to convince the world that Brazil's involvement was irrelevant, only so that you do not end up looking like a fool for not knowing about it. This does not mean that I am "not at peace", but that "pearl of wiosdom" is too monumental to let go so easily.

You have always been arguing.

Radu

You're not quoting me, you're saying you're quoting me and relying on a memory which by all accounts seems to have been somewhat blurred, most likely by the new year's eve party.

For the upteenth time, I did not claim that Brazil was not involved in WW2. Here is my upteenth explanatory message posted more than 2 weeks ago on that thread:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=45&#entry68646

If you still had something to say about this issue, why didn't you post it there?

I insisted that the "at war" state of a continent is based on significant involvement, underlining that the token military participation of a single country of that continent does not amount to the continent's involvement in the largest total war of the century! And I underlined that the continent's military non-involvement does not change its diplomatic involvement, with a majority of its countries declaring war.

I think I have made myself pretty clear and I'm tired of talking to walls repeating the same thing over and over.

As for your personal shots at me (caught with your pants down; unleashed two pages of ranting; end up looking like a fool), they're an interesting escalation in your approach to this discussion, especially coming from a person accusing me of arguing.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 09, 2009 12:36 pm

Please stick to the original topic.

yeah, really...
Happy New Year, all!

Obviously, I have no inside information. But here's one theory:

Staying in Iraq gives Romania credibility as a good, loyal ally -- one you can count on even when the conflict is unpopular and everyone is tired of it. It is dangerous, but your soldiers get valuable experience in real-world operations that they could never get in training exercises. The next time Romania needs soldiers who have actually been shot at, you will have them.

Also, when you stay in Iraq, you stay in a country that has become less violent over the last year. In some places much less violent, in others slightly less violent. Move them to Afghanistan, and the reverse is true -- it has become more violent, and there is no reason to be confident the situation will improve any time soon. A university classmate of mine (and fellow ROTC cadet) commanded a US Army infantry battalion over there a few years ago, and he said some provinces in the south were almost out of government control. And it has gotten worse since he left.

This post has been edited by Jeff_S on January 15, 2009 07:26 pm

Hi Jeff,

wouldn't Romania prove itself as a good ally by increasing its presence in the "tough" theater (Afganistan)? Especially since its forces there are deployed in the south, in contrast to some veteran NATO allies that stay in the much quieter north, and the US has repeatedly called for increased number of troops from its allies there? And the troops in Irak are apparently involved in training Iraki soldiers, not counter-insurgent operations. With things quieting down in Irak, those numbers could prove more useful in Afganistan IMO.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 15, 2009 08:31 pm

One thing is clear: the peace-keeping missions are both in Iraq and in Afghanistan (which, BTW, is a NATO mission!) just as unwanted as any occupation forces. At least by the "natives"
Imagine how would have been received in ex-Jugoslavia, which is in Europe!
Oh, wait, they ARE there! And look what happened...
Regarding Afghanistan, I guess that's a dead end with the same policy maintained. They should change it, either to be more aggresive or to simply disband Afghanistan into some federations of tribes and let them kill each other - as there is no oil to extract from there, only drugs!

"We are now resourcing our counterinsurgency appropriately," said U.S. Army Brigadier General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in southern Afghanistan.

"Our allies have done the heavy lifting for us in the southern region for a long time," he added. "The Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch have taken a lot of casualties."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...0090507?sp=true

He didn't even mention us.

I suppose he believed we are too few to mention - or perhaps it was a political decision not to do that!
I remember I've read once that US frorces began to be succesful in "pacifying" regions with a type of Phoenix programe - if you know what that meant in Vietnam...

He didn't talk about number of troops, he talked about casualties. From that pov if he mentioned the Dutch he should have mentioned us too (the Dutch have lost 19 killed, we have lost 11).

So, if ignorance isn't a cause, political will should be considered?! Why would the Americans put us aside? Perhaps because we are going to withdrawe this year?